Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

tlb wrote:Thank you, I completely missed that. So a fixed number of shots per engagement really is a hard limit on graser usage for anything without the full-up ship's fusion reactor. The wording implies a number of shots close to the missile count (more? or less? I read that as saying might be as few as the number of missiles, so possibly more.).

Any idea why there is maintenance required at that point? I can understand that it could take a long time to recharge, but this implies that the graser needs work. Tube burnout?

For the Shrike it's not maintenance - the Fission reactor just does not provide enough power per second to power the drive, broadside sidewalls, bow/stern walls, and the Graser at any moment - each system has a ring capacitor to power them directly and the fission generator "tops off" the capacitors. (the Ring capacitors were discussed in EoH where the extra stern wall was added to a shrike, and power for it was had by tapping into the Graser and bow ring capacitors).

If you spam the Graser too manty times in a short period - the fission generator just doesn't have enough power to replace the spent energy quickly - and in a battle when you are maneuvering, using all the sidewalls (at one time or another), firing missile, and using the ECM and defenses, the fission pile is busy replacing the spent power for those other systems, and doesn't have enough to spare to rapidly recharge the Graser's capacitor.

The early 90's Star wars X-wing and Tie fighter video games do a good job of this kind of energy management. Just like a LAC, they have "storage banks" of power for fore and aft shields, and for the lasers and Ion cannons. The engine provides only so much power, and you can direct it to topping of any of the systems, or drain a system's storage banks into another if there is a need.

There were many cases in an A-wing, where I had all the power going to rear shields and the engines and getting the heck out of the battle zone ASAP... then, when out in the black, charging every system back up, then slowly (for an A-wing, but quick for everything else) sneaking back in to engage, with guns ablaze.. until they and the shields were drained, only to repeat again.

(If anyone is interested, the X-wing Game series is still available on Steam and GoG for fairly cheap. "X-wing vs Tie" was the best of the 4, and would be my recommendation if you just want to experience the mechanics we're discussing here.)

As for the maintenance on the IDEWs after firing, you got me...

tlb wrote:Thank you, I completely missed that. So a fixed number of shots per engagement really is a hard limit on graser usage for anything without the full-up ship's fusion reactor. The wording implies a number of shots close to the missile count (more? or less? I read that as saying might be as few as the number of missiles, so possibly more.).

Any idea why there is maintenance required at that point? I can understand that it could take a long time to recharge, but this implies that the graser needs work. Tube burnout?

Theemile wrote:For the Shrike it's not maintenance - the Fission reactor just does not provide enough power per second to power the drive, broadside sidewalls, bow/stern walls, and the Graser at any moment - each system has a ring capacitor to power them directly and the fission generator "tops off" the capacitors. (the Ring capacitors were discussed in EoH where the extra stern wall was added to a shrike, and power for it was had by tapping into the Graser and bow ring capacitors).

If you spam the Graser too manty times in a short period - the fission generator just doesn't have enough power to replace the spent energy quickly - and in a battle when you are maneuvering, using all the sidewalls (at one time or another), firing missile, and using the ECM and defenses, the fission pile is busy replacing the spent power for those other systems, and doesn't have enough to spare to rapidly recharge the Graser's capacitor.

--- skip ---

As for the maintenance on the IDEWs after firing, you got me...

Now that it has been pointed out, I do understand about the energy budget. So my remaining unknowns are the maintenance on the IEWP and the approximate number of graser shots a Shrike has per engagement.

The wording of the text implies that it is about the same as the number of missiles carried (14). By saying "at least" I interpret that number as a floor; if it said "at best" then I would take that as a ceiling.

PS: I was never a gamer.

tlb wrote:Now that it has been pointed out, I do understand about the energy budget. So my remaining unknowns are the maintenance on the IEWP and the approximate number of graser shots a Shrike has per engagement.

The wording of the text implies that it is about the same as the number of missiles carried (14). By saying "at least" I interpret that number as a floor; if it said "at best" then I would take that as a ceiling.

PS: I was never a gamer.

It's weird that they say the Shrike has 14 missiles - Shrikes originally had 20 missiles - 5 for each of it's 4 revolver magazines. 14.... just ...isn't divisible by 4. I can see that the Shrike has evolved - and presumedly it's weaponry has as well, so changes are to be expected, but a number of missiles that cannot be divisible by the # of launchers x set slots in the launcher (They are revolvers, remember, so they don't use a central magazine, but each have a revolving carousel for their missiles.) just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps she meant remaining missiles in her mags after taking out the scouts? Maybe a typo?

I seem to remember the 6 or 7 shot # from somewhere, perhaps it was from the EARC, instead of the main book - I usually buy the EARCs, and that stuff has tripped me up more than once.

Theemile wrote:It's weird that they say the Shrike has 14 missiles - Shrikes originally had 20 missiles - 5 for each of it's 4 revolver magazines. 14.... just ...isn't divisible by 4. I can see that the Shrike has evolved - and presumedly it's weaponry has as well, so changes are to be expected, but a number of missiles that cannot be divisible by the # of launchers x set slots in the launcher (They are revolvers, remember, so they don't use a central magazine, but each have a revolving carousel for their missiles.) just doesn't make sense.

Four magazines, but two hold three and the others hold four? Because of some fluke in the design of the LAC that was not symmetrical? Three missiles can be close packed, but five cannot (neither can four, but still more compact than five).

Theemile wrote:It's weird that they say the Shrike has 14 missiles - Shrikes originally had 20 missiles - 5 for each of it's 4 revolver magazines. 14.... just ...isn't divisible by 4. I can see that the Shrike has evolved - and presumedly it's weaponry has as well, so changes are to be expected, but a number of missiles that cannot be divisible by the # of launchers x set slots in the launcher (They are revolvers, remember, so they don't use a central magazine, but each have a revolving carousel for their missiles.) just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps she meant remaining missiles in her mags after taking out the scouts? Maybe a typo?

Or perhaps, because it specifically says "fourteen shipkillers" not 14 missile, it does still has (5x4) 20 revolver slots but the other 6 are loaded with decoys or jammers? </speculation>

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:It's weird that they say the Shrike has 14 missiles - Shrikes originally had 20 missiles - 5 for each of it's 4 revolver magazines. 14.... just ...isn't divisible by 4. I can see that the Shrike has evolved - and presumedly it's weaponry has as well, so changes are to be expected, but a number of missiles that cannot be divisible by the # of launchers x set slots in the launcher (They are revolvers, remember, so they don't use a central magazine, but each have a revolving carousel for their missiles.) just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps she meant remaining missiles in her mags after taking out the scouts? Maybe a typo?

Or perhaps, because it specifically says "fourteen shipkillers" not 14 missile, it does still has (5x4) 20 revolver slots but the other 6 are loaded with decoys or jammers? </speculation>

Good catch... Good catch...

penny wrote:We are discussing plans of powering thousands of them in real time with beamed power, for all intents and purposes indefinitely (or until a protracted engagement is over). Split, beamed power.

tlb wrote:No, we were NOT. I was saying that if we want more than six shots during an engagement, then the IEWP's would need an internal reactor for power.

The beamed power is for the long periods when there is not active combat, just to keep the platforms ready in case an enemy appears. Either for the graser, if no other internal power source or to start the reactor.

Ok, let’s slow this down. We were initially discussing two things. Explaining why Honor says that capacitors need to be shut down to recharge them which led to a discussion about whether beamed power can or should be able to accomplish the task.

Then you suggested indefinite shots throughout a protracted engagement. Indefinite shots would require a reactor aboard each platform. Ten thousand reactors and ten thousand platforms. That is an immense undertaking. Doable in the HV. Certainly with Manticore’s building capacity pre Oyster Bay. At any rate, you've got to crawl before you can walk. So, I suspect Shannon drew up a project that enables a quick and practical use of the SL grasers that can be utilized quickly and within reason. The use of plasma capacitors instead of reactors would make the project much less complicated, cheaper and would get the project completed quickly. I also imagine a project of that size and permanence would require too much maintenance if reactors are in use for an indefinite length of time. Reactors need bodies to monitor readings. I suppose computers can handle the task in many instances but therein lies your blossoming project again.

But minus the reactors the option becomes beamed power. Beamed power is simply a high tech form of transferring power without the extension cord. There is a high stakes game of cord cutting in the HV. (Perhaps that is why there are no cable companies in existence).

But beamed power also has limitations of distance and maximum power delivery. Same variables as today’s limitations. Plus, the platforms have to be able to receive this power without it having to be stepped up or down. Which would add even more complexity and infrastructure helping to blossom the project way beyond the feasible and practical.

In fact, she’s already worked out the quickest way to run up a remote platform tied into the central fire control system of a standard terminus fort.”

A remote platform has to be run up and tied into the central fire control system of a single fort. Where Shannon has already conceived of the easiest method to accomplish the task, it has to be duplicated possibly ten thousand times depending on the ability of the platform. Shannon is talking about platforms the size of the 400,000 ton Mycroft. Of course, she says two freighters can carry each and each assembled in two days.

Anyway, barring the unfeasibility of topping the plethora of platforms off with beamed power, there is still going to be a required amount of time to complete the task of charging capacitors that do have an inherent charge time.

At any rate, I am suggesting that beamed power is impractical to recharge that many platforms once they are depleted, but it should be feasible simply to keep them topped off.

Theemile has suggested that plasma = steam power. That’s a nice analogy and I also thought about the power derived from heating water. But of course, the use of plasma is much more efficient than that.

The following is going to be to tlb’s dismay.

Again, it is obvious to me that the HV has solved the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). It would explain a lot of the abilities of HV tech without the need for pixie dust. Tlb calls it my silly invention or something. It isn’t. It is simply physics. It is the holy grail that Einstein sought for a large part of his life.

If the GUT has been solved, then the plasma itself is quickly converted into energy; or rather, is quickly available for energy. Plasma is already the base of our proposed fusion reactors. France has sustained a fusion reaction for 22 minutes.

However, plasma is generated from fuel (gases) itself. I am guessing that the materials to make the plasma is itself replaced after the platforms shoot themselves dry. The generation of plasma aboard ship is a piece of cake with the use of gravity, etc. Aboard a platform the plasma has to be included when the platform launches.

From Wiki: Fusion processes require fuel, in a state of plasma, and a confined environment with sufficient temperature, pressure, and confinement time. The combination of these parameters that results in a power-producing system is known as the Lawson criterion. In stellar cores the most common fuel is the lightest isotope of hydrogen (protium), and gravity provides the conditions needed for fusion energy production. Proposed fusion reactors would use the heavy hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium for DT fusion, for which the Lawson criterion is known to be easiest to achieve. This produces a helium nucleus and an energetic neutron.[5] Most designs aim to heat their fuel to around 100 million kelvins, which presents a major challenge in producing a successful design. Fusion fuel is 10 million times more energy dense than coal,[6] but tritium is extremely rare on Earth, having a half life of only ~12.3 years. Consequently, during the operation of envisioned fusion reactors, breeding blankets are subjected to neutron fluxes to generate tritium to complete the fuel cycle.[7]

In closing, putting a reactor onboard the platforms might be defeating the purpose and making the project too complicated and unwieldly. Onboard a warship the support infrastructure for the plasma is not a big deal. To achieve onboard the platforms with plasma capacitors (or plasma capacitors and reactors) what is achieved aboard ship might be a bit too ambitious. A wonderful idea if it can be made practical.

And that doesn’t even consider whether the type of plasma capacitors used is the same.

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:True. But I can easily accept that. For one thing the solar array is directly affixed to the platform. Proximity allows for efficiency. And the panels are only responsible for one shot of the 3-second graser.

We are discussing plans of powering thousands of them in real time with beamed power, for all intents and purposes indefinitely (or until a protracted engagement is over). Split, beamed power.

I'd assume that boththe Silver Bullet and the IEWPs would have been launched with fully charged capacitors (which in the IEWPs' case presumably hold sufficient charge for several shots; possibly even all seven).

So the bulk of the time the solar power or beamed power only needs to provide enough input to cover the normal operations of the platforms plus top up whatever energy might bleed out of the capacitors. That should be a pretty low rate, basically a trickle charge.

It's only when a given IEWP fires that you might need to crank up the charge rate and feed enough additional power into the capacitors to make up whatever difference exists between their max storage and the energy required for 7 shots. And only a relative handful of IEWPs will ever be engaging at once; so only those specific platforms need high rate charging. All the others are still in standby waiting for additional targets to show up and, at most, just need regular trickle charging. So the Junction defenses don't need to be designed to provide max rate beamed power to many thousands of platforms simultaneously because they're never intending to fire all those platforms simultaneously. (And if s**t hits the fan hard enough that all the IEWPs need to fire basically at once then most of them not getting off 7 shots isn't going to be your most pressing concern)

That's what I question. Again, I think what Honor is pointing out is the requirements of the plasma capacitors. I think they get to a point where they are beyond recharging and have to be replaced. Aboard a warship there is an ongoing symphony of plasma generation and restoration using plasma conduits. The infrastructure that is taken for granted aboard a warship simply might not be feasible aboard a platform without making the project just too unwieldy / impractical.

penny wrote:However, plasma is generated from fuel (gases) itself. I am guessing that the materials to make the plasma is itself replaced after the platforms shoot themselves dry. The generation of plasma aboard ship is a piece of cake with the use of gravity, etc. Aboard a platform the plasma has to be included when the platform launches.

If you are saying that plasma cannot be generated on a platform after it is launched, then you need to explain what the solar panels were doing on the Silver Bullets; because it was written that they were keeping the capacitors topped off. You are likely correct that there also needs to be tanks of gases to generate the plasma and those would need at some point to be refilled.

However the micro fusion reactor does not need people to manage it and my suggestion (which we now know would be insufficient for a graser's power needs during a fight) was that the reactor only start up at the beginning of active combat.

Whether or not the Theory of Everything has been solved in the Honorverse, my problem was you claiming that meant waste heat could be sent out a tractor beam and dumped into hyperspace. That was the part I considered crackpot. In our universe there are several candidates for a Grand Unified Theory, but none of them include gravity. For us gravity is still a field theory and not a quantum theory, despite people talking about gravitons.

PS: Some people do include gravity in their Grand Unified Theory, but have not gotten very far past gravitons.

penny wrote:France has sustained a fusion reaction for 22 minutes.

Au contraire; the French experimenters have managed to contain a plasma for about 22 minutes, but there is no suggestion of the compression needed for a fusion reaction.

penny wrote:However, plasma is generated from fuel (gases) itself. I am guessing that the materials to make the plasma is itself replaced after the platforms shoot themselves dry. The generation of plasma aboard ship is a piece of cake with the use of gravity, etc. Aboard a platform the plasma has to be included when the platform launches.

tlb wrote:If you are saying that plasma cannot be generated on a platform after it is launched, then you need to explain what the solar panels were doing on the Silver Bullets; because it was written that they were keeping the capacitors topped off. You are likely correct that there also needs to be tanks of gases to generate the plasma and those would need at some point to be refilled.

The panels were trickle-charging them. There is a difference between recharging and replacing. The closest analogue I know is when end users first started jailbreaking android devices and uploading their own operating system. People were warned that a third party OS did not perform the normal maintenance of keeping a charge across the capacitors. So if you jailbreak an android device, you better not let the battery completely discharge or you would end up with a bricked system. A paperweight.

I think plasma capacitors are similar. They are kept topped off with a small maintenance charge running across them. Once they are depleted they are done.

Just like the human body, plasma is the lifeblood coursing through the veins of the ship (plasma conduits). And just like the human body it is constantly being replenished. Veins vs plasma conduits.